I HATE trashing fun ideas, but someone has to do it. Several people have suggested that politicians should physically wear the corporate logos of major campaign contributors. The proposal rises from frustration with legislation written for the benefit of large companies. If politicians displayed their corporate colors, the public would know who was behind the tax breaks to IBM or subsidies to tobacco growers. This would provide me with great personal enjoyment, but the Federal Election Commission already publishes information about both companies' and individuals' donations. Having politicians wear their sponsorship would merely further publicize this information, and would not stop them from taking corporate money.
Public financing of elections would be one solution to the problem of businesses' buying political influence. Candidates would use tax monies, instead of donations, to fund their campaigns. But that appears to be an unlikely outcome. A nation that has difficulty funding children's school lunches probably won't find money for politicians' posters.
Most campaign finance reform tries to address the problem by capping the amount of money candidates receive. The premise of this reform appears to be that politicians cannot be bought for less than $1,000 - $300, if a Green Party candidate. The First Amendment, however, creates a major stumbling block to such proposals. Some opponents of reform say that donors have a free-speech right to express their support for a candidate.
But money in itself is not speech. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech because speech is supposed to communicate ideas. The act of contributing to a campaign does not communicate any particular thought. Considering the number of companies which give money to both sides, that money does not even mean thinking a certain candidate should win. Nor does the "In God We Trust" printed on the money express the sentiment of the transaction. If corporations and individuals really trusted God to pick the right candidate, they wouldn't have to make contributions.
Rather than trying to figure out appropriate restrictions on private financing of political campaigns, Congress should change the rules completely. Let everyone spend as much as they want to support their candidates - but only give that support with actual speech. Companies will have to communicate with the public to get votes for their candidates as well as customers for their products.
|
Recently, television stations aired a commercial from Virginia gubernatorial candidate Mark Earley (R) that demonstrates his patriotism by showing kids putting up a flag. Young children using a hammer without adult supervision is as all-American as it gets. But the ad tells us little about Earley.
The commercial probably was partly funded by AT Massey, a Richmond coal company that has given over $100,000 to Earley. Left to its own devices, AT Massey surely could make a much more informative commercial about Earley, or at least notify the public of the reasons for supporting Earley. The announcer could declare, "We support Mark Earley because we think he's the flag-waving choice."
More honestly, he might admit, "We support Mark Earley because he's been good to coal. He voted twice for the Coal Tax Credit, supported the Virginia Coalfield Economic Development Authority, helped approve the Coal Export Resolution, endorsed re-mining of strip mining sites, and called for state facilities to use Virginia coal" ("State hopefuls vie for UMWA endorsements," Bristol Herald Courier, Aug. 14).
Under this system, candidates who wanted to explain their own reasons for thinking they would make good officials would go door to door to get their message to voters. "Ignore that ad," Earley would say to skeptical Fairfax citizens. "No more tax credits for coal, because we need that money to build new roads."
After all, the majority of political advertising tells voters very little. Those roadside placards just give names; those TV and radio ads try to summarize in 30 seconds why someone would be a good leader. If Americans cannot get more information, they deserve more entertainment from the political-industrial complex.
Having corporations make commercials for their favored candidates would improve the overall quality of such advertising, in style as well as honesty of content. Imagine the political commercials Pepsi's advertising firm could create. Bob Dole (R) might have captured young male voters in the 1996 presidential election had someone like Britney Spears been shilling for him then. "Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba, ba-ba-ba-ba-Bob! The joy of Dole-a!"
(Pallavi Guniganti's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at pguniganti@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 4 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 4 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
